Talk:Xbox Cheats
Delete Proposal So yeah I can't see any reason this page was created. There isn't enough information here to justify a page and frankly the information is covered much better on the ME2 page. All this page contains is one thing so I vote delete. Also when was a split discussed, because I can't seem to remember this conversation. Also given the text at the top of the page, we already have an article for that, PC Tweaks (Mass Effect 2). Also I don't think that it should be covered there given the information that is covered in that article. Lancer1289 18:31, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :Agreed. Lots of issues with this. The title is also problematic, given that there are no ME games for the original Xbox, only the Xbox 360. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:41, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Concur. It's "XBox Cheats", but the page contains one glitch. One, not multiple, as pretty much demanded by the plural "cheats", and it isn't really even a cheat. More of an exploit. A glitch that can be used to ones favor. And, as astutely pointed out by Commdor, the game isn't for the Xbox. So no part of the title is correct. As such, and as the info is already covered elsewhere, vote to delete. SpartHawg948 20:02, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::A question on a related note: The page is "XBox Cheats". Name inaccuracies aside, why is the first line of the XBox Cheats article "This page lists cheat information for the PC version of Mass Effect."? The XBox Cheats article is really about PC Cheats? SpartHawg948 20:19, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yes, but you do know who arbitrates when there is a tie, right? The admins. Who are the admins? The active admins are myself and Lancer. Additionally, I see no instance where Lancer has argued "that another article is better", merely that another article is the more appropriate location. You are correct that articles do not start out perfect. Some, however, do start in a position so flawed or untenable that no amount of editing can fix them. Thus far, the voting seems to reflect that this may be one of those instances. SpartHawg948 21:15, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::Agreed as the ME2 article is a much more appropiate location. :::::Also when was a move discussed because I don't recall that conversation. The page has since been moved back as it was an unauthorzied move against polices. Also how it is laughable to cover it on the ME2 page, it has no relevance anywhere else and frankly it doesn't even have enough to justify an article. As such I still vote delete. Lancer1289 21:17, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Oh, I can read. I can also comprehend what I read. "There isn't enough information here to justify a page and frankly the information is covered much better on the ME2 page". Note that this clearly states not that the info is presented better there, but that it more appropriate there. SpartHawg948 21:20, November 3, 2010 (UTC) Well it's been well over the 7 day waiting period, and with a vote of 3-1, now 3-0 with the opposing vote removing all fo their comments, the article is going. Lancer1289 23:11, November 22, 2010 (UTC) Oh FFS. "Unauthorized move"? That's bull. One, I have permission to move articles, and the talk page pointed out how the name of the article was troubling, and I agreed. But I'm done with this -- you clearly are more interested in maintaining some false sense of ownership and authority here than actually encouraging an editor to contribute. Now I understand why the grammar and spelling on the ME articles are far inferior compared to other Wikia projects. I rescind my edits, and I'm done with the ME Wikia. -- Metaneira 21:16, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :No, we do ask that users not move pages arbitrarily and unilaterally. Discussion is called for first. Even admins rarely move pages with little or no discussion. You may be thinking of other wikis, where these standards are not in force. However, as individual wikis are allowed to set their own policies on these matters, it's ultimately our standards for moving pages that new editors must abide by. SpartHawg948 21:19, November 3, 2010 (UTC) :*Well... I'm guessing the infantile tantrums mean that the adult portion of this discussion is effectively over. What a shame... SpartHawg948 21:34, November 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Indeed. ::Also discussions are required before any moves and unilateral action isn't tolerated very well. Wikis are free to set their policies in these matters, and ignoring them isn't the best way to greet a new community, where everyone is held to the same rules. Lancer1289 21:39, November 3, 2010 (UTC)